COS's California Ballot (2024)
I spend a lot of time talking about abstract ideas and online rhetoric (what Scott Alexander calls the "sphinx") rather than actual politics. I think this is because my usual line of thinking is "things are complicated" (or, more pointedly, "things are more complicated than you're making them out to be"), but I recognize that this mainly comes down to a failure to remain politically informed.
Inspired by the California ballot posts on Astral Codex Ten, I'll talk about actual politics for once. During elections, I spend most of my time researching ballot measures, so those are what I'll discuss here. I know these posts generally come out before Election Day, but my intent is less about advocacy and more about just expressing my opinions.
The main way I evaluate ballot measures is by reading endorsements from different sources and considering if the arguments are compelling to me. My sources include major news publications (reference pages are available from UC Berkeley and California Choices [see also endorsements for county measures]); for local issues I pay particular attention to endorsements from the Los Angeles Times (more left-leaning) and the Southern California News Group (the shared editorial board for the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Daily News, and other newspapers; more right-leaning). I also refer to Pete Rates the Propositions by Pete Stahl, and this year I've also looked at the local voting guides posted on Astral Codex Ten.
Summary of my political views: Broadly speaking, I'm some flavor of "liberal" within the American political context. Economically, I have ideals which could be considered social-democratic in some sense, favoring welfare programs and public ownership of certain services while leaning toward solutions that preserve free markets. Socially, I value individual freedom and pluralism, and I tend to focus on diversity at the individual level.
I'll be honest, I don't like evaluating bond measures.
I think of this as basically a housekeeping measure to remove outdated language from the state constitution, which was added with Proposition 8 in 2008.
A more substantial argument for the measure is that overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (which some people are worried about after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization) could "reactivate" this provision and thus ban same-sex marriage again. But my understanding is that there was litigation on Proposition 8 before Obergefell, so I'm not entirely sure if that will happen here in California. Still, it seems like a situation to avoid.
One argument against the measure that stands out to me is that it would "remove protections against child marriages, incest, and polygamy" (quoting from the argument in the voter information guide). This feels somewhat similar to the argument against Proposition 1 back in 2022 that Scott Alexander highlighted. My response is that it's generally understood that rights have limitations and I don't expect a constitution to codify every one. (This does mean that the exact nature of those limits can be contentious; the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution come to mind.) In that same post, Alexander said he leaned towards not putting more things into the state constitution unless there's a compelling reason, which I believe is part of why he opposed Proposition 1. I can sympathize with that, but I think removing the previous language is compelling enough here.
(Side note: I learned that Oakland and Berkeley passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination against polyamorous people earlier this year, ironically thanks to the California Family Council, one of the signatories to the argument against Proposition 3. Here's the thing: I think protections against discrimination here are a good thing, but I've never really been in favor of polygamous civil marriage, at least not within the current system which of course assumes that people are only married to one partner at a time. However, as I read more about this topic I learned about the domestic partnership ordinances in Somerville and Cambridge in Massachusetts, which create a system of domestic partnerships separate from civil marriage. I think these could serve as a model for legal recognition of non-monogamous partnerships.)
A lot of the support seems to take the form of "seems sensible enough," and I guess that's where I stand as well.
Some sources note the deal that the California Association of Realtors struck with lawmakers to prohibit using money from local bonds to purchase low-density housing (specifically any housing with up to four units) and convert it into more affordable housing. The San Francisco Chronicle opposes the measure for this reason despite supporting the measure's overall aims. But from what I can tell, this prohibition is normal legislation separate from the measure, so it wouldn't be codified in the state constitution, which to me makes it less of a reason to oppose the measure.
I admit I went back and forth between voting yes and abstaining. I don't place forced labor as punishment for a crime in the same moral category as the slavery people usually think of, or human trafficking which is considered part of what some call "modern slavery." I went back and forth between abstaining and voting yes, and ultimately I figured this is a matter of improving prison conditions, which I generally support.
I'm not really sure California needs to raise its minimum wage further, and I'll echo Los Angeles Rationality here: "Many...wished there was some canonical economic model they could follow that would tell them the optimal amount of minimum wage." The state has already done the sensible thing of tying minimum wage to inflation, so I'm less inclined to believe this measure is necessary.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about minimum wage. I'm reminded of something Scott Alexander said in his 2020 California ballot post, as part of his argument against Proposition 22: "The solution [to the increased difficulty of finding employment] is for the government to fund its own damn social services and stop hanging more and more things on the employer-employee relationship." Health insurance in particular has gotten some attention, but I think minimum wage is another thing to look at. In my ideal world, minimum wage would be replaced by a UBI or similar grant, but I realize that I don't know how well this would work in practice and also that proposing this is a great way to piss everyone off.
California YIMBY opposes this measure, arguing that rent control in general can make it difficult to build more housing and that this measure would allow NIMBYs to use rent control in bad faith to block new housing. California's existing allowances for rent control seem okay enough.
Almost everyone seems to agree that this is meant to target the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and I'm putting this in the same category as those measures to regulate dialysis clinics in recent years (Proposition 29 in 2022, Proposition 23 in 2020, and Proposition 8 in 2018). On the substance of the measure, it imposes new requirements on healthcare providers that meet a very particular set of criteria, and it's pretty obvious that this is meant to apply only to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and pretty much no one else. I don't see a good reason for such narrow applicability, so it seems like bad policy even without the squabbling aspect.
Los Angeles Rationality seems to think that punishing NIMBYs is a good reason to support this measure, but I think it's a pretty weak justification. I do agree with this, though: "It would be funny if this passed."
Pete Stahl provides a fairly accessible summary of how this measure came to be, although he calls it "insanely complicated." Both the Los Angeles Times and the Southern California News Group oppose the measure, calling it "ballot-box budgeting" and arguing that it should be the legislature's job, not voters', to figure out this rather esoteric aspect of healthcare policy. I honestly don't have the patience to research the policy itself, and I agree with the broader point that this isn't voters' responsibility.
I'm not convinced that the reforms proposed in this measure will be effective, and both the Los Angeles Times and the Southern California News Group oppose it. Also, Pete Stahl notes that new laws have already been passed that address some of what this measure seeks to change.
I will admit that I haven't researched the proposed reforms all that deeply, so this is a weak position. I will note there's some lively debate about this measure in the comments of this guest post on Astral Codex Ten, although I already started filling out my ballot before I read the post and I haven't been convinced to change my vote.
Los Angeles County Ballot Measures
I'm only going to discuss countywide measures for privacy reasons. I'm fine with people knowing what county I live in, but I don't want the particular mix of other local measures on my ballot to give away a more precise location.
Los Angeles Rationality endorses this measure, citing some reporting by LAist that suggests the existing programs are working but could use more funding. Maybe. I'll admit this is an area I haven't researched very well so I don't know how compelling the argument is.
This measure got me thinking about the sales-tax rate in the county. Where does all the money go?
The current countywide rate is 9.5%. (Some cities impose their own sales taxes, so in some places the rate is higher.) This report from 2003 is an excellent starting point, and from there it's a matter of tracking additional sales-tax measures that have appeared on the ballot.
To start, the state sales tax rate is 6%. Counties impose an additional 1.25% sales tax, with 1% for general use and 0.25% for a special transportation fund. On top of that, counties and cities can impose additional sales taxes with voter approval. In the case of Los Angeles County, a total of 2% has been added for public transit (this was done across four different ballot measures each adding 0.5%: Proposition A in 1980, Proposition C in 1990, Measure R in 2008, and Measure M in 2016). Finally, there's the 0.25% sales tax to address homelessness (which was added in 2017 with Measure H). Measure A seeks to increase that last portion to 0.5%, which means the overall countywide sales tax rate would increase to 9.75%.
Expanding the board of supervisors seems to be the least controversial part of this measure, and the bigger point of contention is making the county executive an elected position. However, some argue that the board expansion is badly needed and outweighs other concerns: The Los Angeles Times says that reforms of county government are rare; Knock LA criticizes the other offices that the measure would create but argues that this will be voters' only chance in a while to reform the government. Speaking of those other offices, I do wonder how they will function in practice, especially given the cost constraint.
